Gujarat Court February 2000 Judgments
Mundalakal S. Semon and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR265
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents withholding of increments of the petitioners as illegal, void and by permanently restraining the Government from withholding an increment on the ground that the petitioners have not passed Gujarati language examination.2. The petitioners were serving in Forest Department. They had not passed the examination prescribed under the Government Servants (Lower and Higher Standard) Gujarati Language Examination Rules, 1970. The rules were framed in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the rules are statutory in nature. Under the provisions of the said rules, all the Gazetted as well as Non-gazetted government servants except Class IV employees whose mother tongue was not Gujarati were required to pass examination. Since the petitioners had not passed the said examination, increment was withheld. The said action was challenged in the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Telephone Subscribers' Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR245
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioners -Telephone Subscribers' Association and others, for various reliefs prayed in respective petitions. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association whose object is to safeguard and protect interests of the members of its Association in respect of telephone services. Other petitioners are members of petitioner No. 1 Association and subscribers of telephones. By the present petitions, they challenge the action of the respondent-authorities which is 'highhanded, arbitrary, illegal, illogical and discriminatory'. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that members of petitioner No. 1-Association are subscribers of telephones. It is alleged that mischief was played by officers and/or employees of telephone department and even though members of petitioner No. 1-Association had not made international calls, officers/employees of the department, in collusion with some persons, made certain t...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Vasisht Vs. National Textile Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2191
ORDER1. As both the parties are one and the same and both the petitions arise out of the same departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent Corporation against the petitioner and are interconnected and hence both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Special Civil Applications Nos. 7184/91 and 1922/96 are interconnected and pertaining to the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and hence both these petitions were directed to be heard together by the order dated 7-12-1999. Both these petitions have been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner for two days and both these petitions were kept for hearing the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on 22-12-1999. On 23-12-1999 learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear Spl. C.A. No. 1922/96 and the same should be released to be heard by another bench as this Bench has not been entrusted with hearing of the Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Adhikar Sangh Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2002Guj59
B.C. Patel, J. 1. This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high-rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of rules and regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various Sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially, the Division Bench (Coram : R. A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N. N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1-7-1997, returnable on 21-7-1997. Thereafter, on 4-9-1997, the Court (Coram: R. A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N. N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ391; (2000)2GLR625
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This appeal and the cross objection arising out of the same accident involving common questions of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgement.2. The appeal has arisen from the judgement and award dated 19.4.84 of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj awarding Rs. 1 Lac as compensation for the death of Anilkumar aged about 20 years which occurred on account of the fatal accident between the bus of the appellant and the scooter driven by the deceased together with 6% p.a. interest with proportionate costs. The cross objection has been filed by the claimants-respondents claiming that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less and Rs. 1 lac more should be awarded over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the interest be enhanced to 12% p.a. with costs throughout and the First Appeal of the appellant under consideration be dismissed.3. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal and cross objections are as under:-Anil...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn V. Ashar Vs. Jaidev,
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR828(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The short but interesting question which has surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the impugned order of respondent No. 1, under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'I. T. Act'), dated March 26, 1992, in respect ofthe assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82 (7 years), whereby the revision application of the petitioner-assessee came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation, is legal, valid or justified or not ?2. The petitioner-assessee was working as a Development Officer for the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was in receipt of the incentive bonus, partly, in order to reimburse the expenditure required to be incurred for procuring business. He raised this issue, for the first time, in the assessment year 1982-83, contending that since part of the incentive bonus received is required to be spent for procuring business, part of the incentive bonus should be exempted under the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Sorathia Velji Ratna and Co. Vs. Gujarat Agricultural University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR890
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The appellant moved an application under Sections 8, 9 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the Court below requesting for appointment of Arbitrator within the terms of the tender agreement and contending that the dispute arose between the parties in respect of tender Agreement the same may be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Court for adjudication of disputes. As usual this Application was registered as Special Suit No. 66 of 1988. Written statement was entertained by the Court below. Issues were framed. No evidence was given by the plaintiff appellant. Certain documents were filed which were exhibited. Ultimately the court below did not propose to decide Issues No. 4 & 5. Issues No. 1 & 2 were decided in negative. The trial Court further found that since existence of dispute between the parties is not proved the plaintiff is not entitled to get Arbitrator appointed under clause : 35 of the tender Agreement. With these findings the Suit was dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Vanubhai Mangalbhai Patel Vs. Khalpabhai Mangalbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR347
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dt.26.4.91 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad whereby the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs and it was declared that the plaintiff is the joint owner and occupant of the suit properties along with the defendants and is entitled to joint possession and joint user of the same. The defendants were permanently restrained from obstructing the plaintiff in cultivation, using the suit properties jointly with them and other family members.2. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are brothers and defendant No.3 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 and 2 and she is residing with defendants Nos.1 and 2. The father of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.3 had died on 24.7.77.3. The present suit was filed on 1.3.82 by the plaintiff who came with the case that the grandfather of plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 and 2 Koyabhai had died about 30 years prio...
Tag this Judgment!Late Chaturbhuj Mulji, Thro' His Heirs Vs. Heirs and Legal Rep. of Dec ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3343
C.K. Thakker, J:1. This appeal is filed against dismissal of First appeal No. 5768 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge on May 12, 1999.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal as stated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in this LPA are that on May 12, 1953, a registered deed was executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 , ('mortgagors' for short) in favour of one Ranchhoddas Meghji ('mortgagee' for short) for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Firm of Ranchhoddas Meghji, appellants herein (original defendant) owed certain amount for which it assigned the right, title and interest in the said property by a registered deed dated April 23, 1956 in favour of the plaintiffs. Documents of title of the property were handed over to the plaintiffs . In 1959, plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 7 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.),Bhuj against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for recovering an amount of Rs. 89,650/- . Defendant No.5 died during the pendency of the proceedings and his heirs and...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Kheta Dagaria Harijan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR850
M.S. Parikh, J.1. This conviction appeal arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 21/2/1990 rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 78/1988. The appellant, the accused in the Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the offence punishable u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment for he having committed murder of his wife Fulabai Rana at about 12.00 noon on 27/8/1988 by inflicting axe blows on the back side of her neck in the field known to the parties as Ganeshiya field in the outskirt of Sumrasar village of district Kutch.2. The complainant Karsan Vasta who happens to be the brother of deceased Fulabai lodged his FIR to the effect that at the aforesaid time and place on 27/8/1988 said Fulabai had gone to the field in the company of her son Mavji and as she did not return home, the complainant and his brothers Lakhman and Rupabhai and other persons went to inquire about the matter. During the cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »